Anybody who believes white farmers can rescue Zimbabwe's economy, has absolutely no clue what is wrong with Zimbabwe.
Recently Zimbabwe's government announced that it wants to give white farmers offer letters for land. These are not full title, or even long term leasehold and offer no legal protection from political interference. In fact the only security they offer is entirely based on political charitability because a minister can withdraw them at any time.
Apart from appealing to the usual racists who believe the blacks are lazy whites are hardworking nonsense, there is no news in the so called 'revelation' that Zimbabwe wants to bring back white farmers.
The problem with Zimbabwe is not agricultural output or other productive output. The problem is a culture of corruption, official impunity and grand scale entitlement that has taken root in the political elite.
No white farmer is going to grow crops in order to deliver them for free to government. No white farmer is going to stop ministers from taking whatever they want from government coffers because of their overblown sense of entitlement. Even if they grow crops, they can only do it for one or two seasons and then drown.
Right now, farmers who delivered maize to the GMB in 2013 have not been paid. Where were they expected to get the money for inputs for 2014 and now 2015. What bank is going to give you a loan knowing the chances of you not being paid for your crops are very high.
The agricultural market is heavily restricted with non-state entities being regularly elbowed out by government in favour of parastatals like the Grain Marketing Board (GMB) and the Cotton Company of Zimbabwe (Cottco).
Most of the maize delivered to the GMB is allocated to milling companies owned by ministers for token (not market) prices and sometimes even just taken for free.
That it is the Zanu-PF government floating the idea shows, not only that they don't know how to solve the problem, but, significantly, that they are not prepared to change their ways. Those corrupt, we-are-entitled-to-whatever-we-want ways are the root cause of the problem, not the skin colour of the people producing crops.
Yes a white farmer can come back today. However what guarantee do they have that two years down the line a minister won't try to take their now productive farm? The compulsory land acquisition laws are still in place. Anybody who has been following Zimbabwe's issues will know that those laws have been used by high-ranking politicians to raid going concerns, milk them of cash, then dump the shells.
That seems to be what they have been trying to do with indigenisation laws as well, use them as a tool to raid going businesses for cash. Most of that cash is going to personal pockets and not government coffers anyway.
No one, not black farmers, not white farmers can operate in an environment where you have to rely on the personal charity of politicians, not law, to keep your investments safe.
Mind you the problem is not just affecting agriculture. Right now the government led by Supa Mandiwanzira has been trying to make a run for the assets of Zimbabwe's second largest mobile operator, Telecel.
He has also been trying to force the biggest operator, Econet, to share its infrastructure with parastatal NetOne. NetOne used to be the biggest mobile operator but, like nearly all other parastatals, has now been reduced to a shell because constant raids to its coffers for cash have deprived it of money to invest in infrastructure and growth.
If the mines had not been owned by very big conglomerates, most would have been taken over by now.
What we are faced with is a wolf called corruption, entitlement and greed wearing a sheepskin called black empowerment, indigenisation and all other esoteric feelgood themes. That it may be singing to Little Red Riding Hood called white farmer in grandma's voice, will never ever change the wolf genes in its body.
If white farmers are prepared to handover their maize to GMB for free, let them come back. I will personally go and stand in the line for free handouts when politicians are handing over their maize to villagers to buy votes.
Thursday 16 July 2015
Monday 6 July 2015
The Southlea Saga: Of Chickens and Sharks
What kind of government, sets up its people for extortion by dubious business people? What kind of government allows its authority to be used to manoeuvre people into positions where they are mercilessly milked of their money to enrich millionaires
The Southlea saga is one of the saddest indictments of abuse of government authority and processes by an individual.
Odar Farm was acquired BY GOVERNMENT over a decade ago, and was allocated to various housing cooperatives. Some of these housing cooperatives involved the employees of parastatals like ZESA. One of them involved prominent Zanu-PF central committee member, Mai Manyonda and her daughter.
That the farm was acquired by government and allocated to housing cooperatives is beyond question. What is unclear, is what happened after that.
At some point the government was taken to court by Philip Chiyangwa. Mind you the farm was not acquired from him in the first place. How the farm ended up his property is an area covered in thick fog.
He took the government to court and lost the case at the High Court. The story we are now hearing, is that Chiyangwa appealed to the Supreme Court and then reached an out of court settlement with the government.
How on this beautiful earth of ours, could the government enter into an out of court settlement without involving the parties it had allocated the farm to. Surely it should have known that they stood to suffer massive prejudice. Surely the government should have known it was handing the people over to Chiyangwa for extortion purposes.
Chiyangwa is reported to be demanding $150 'registration fee' after which it will be at his liberty to decide what price he will charge the occupants for the stands. Mungati angarega kufara segudo raona danga remarize pasi pebwe?.
Another thing, that is murkier than Mukuvisi waters, is exactly who in government authorised the so called out of court settlement. Was it local housing minister Ignatius Chombo? Was it a cabinet sitting? Was it His Excellency the President himself?
Failure by the government to involve the people it had allocated the land to means the out of court settlement could not have been in good faith. Secrecy about the government's logic and reasoning in so belatedly entering into an out of court settlement, does not suggest it was a decision taken in good faith. Decisions taken in bad faith are not valid at law.
What is further puzzling is that to any thinking person, this clearly civil dispute caused by the government's flip-flopping on what should be a straightforward issue, is suddenly being treated as criminal fraud by police. If that is the case why did they not start by arresting the minister who allocated the area to the housing cooperatives in the first place? Surely he is a co-conspirator in all the developments up to now.
This clearly looks like the police being used by powerful entities to harass the hapless elected representatives of the housing cooperatives involved.
Still the question needs to be answered, why did the government chicken out at the last minute? Why did the government decide to throw live chickens into shark infested waters? Surely they should have known the feeding frenzy to follow, would cause a massive disturbance.
The best way forward forward for the housing cooperatives involved is to approach the courts and ask for the so called out of court settlement to be set aside because clearly it was done in bad faith.
They should further seek that Southlea be declared part of Harare metropolitan area so that its affairs fall under the authority of the city council. They should further seek that demarcated stands should be allocated to persons who have been paying for their servicing under the housing cooperative schemes.
Lastly they should seek a cease and desist order against any parties that have been harassing them such as Mr Chiyangwa.
The Southlea saga is one of the saddest indictments of abuse of government authority and processes by an individual.
Odar Farm was acquired BY GOVERNMENT over a decade ago, and was allocated to various housing cooperatives. Some of these housing cooperatives involved the employees of parastatals like ZESA. One of them involved prominent Zanu-PF central committee member, Mai Manyonda and her daughter.
That the farm was acquired by government and allocated to housing cooperatives is beyond question. What is unclear, is what happened after that.
At some point the government was taken to court by Philip Chiyangwa. Mind you the farm was not acquired from him in the first place. How the farm ended up his property is an area covered in thick fog.
He took the government to court and lost the case at the High Court. The story we are now hearing, is that Chiyangwa appealed to the Supreme Court and then reached an out of court settlement with the government.
How on this beautiful earth of ours, could the government enter into an out of court settlement without involving the parties it had allocated the farm to. Surely it should have known that they stood to suffer massive prejudice. Surely the government should have known it was handing the people over to Chiyangwa for extortion purposes.
Chiyangwa is reported to be demanding $150 'registration fee' after which it will be at his liberty to decide what price he will charge the occupants for the stands. Mungati angarega kufara segudo raona danga remarize pasi pebwe?.
Another thing, that is murkier than Mukuvisi waters, is exactly who in government authorised the so called out of court settlement. Was it local housing minister Ignatius Chombo? Was it a cabinet sitting? Was it His Excellency the President himself?
Failure by the government to involve the people it had allocated the land to means the out of court settlement could not have been in good faith. Secrecy about the government's logic and reasoning in so belatedly entering into an out of court settlement, does not suggest it was a decision taken in good faith. Decisions taken in bad faith are not valid at law.
What is further puzzling is that to any thinking person, this clearly civil dispute caused by the government's flip-flopping on what should be a straightforward issue, is suddenly being treated as criminal fraud by police. If that is the case why did they not start by arresting the minister who allocated the area to the housing cooperatives in the first place? Surely he is a co-conspirator in all the developments up to now.
This clearly looks like the police being used by powerful entities to harass the hapless elected representatives of the housing cooperatives involved.
Still the question needs to be answered, why did the government chicken out at the last minute? Why did the government decide to throw live chickens into shark infested waters? Surely they should have known the feeding frenzy to follow, would cause a massive disturbance.
The best way forward forward for the housing cooperatives involved is to approach the courts and ask for the so called out of court settlement to be set aside because clearly it was done in bad faith.
They should further seek that Southlea be declared part of Harare metropolitan area so that its affairs fall under the authority of the city council. They should further seek that demarcated stands should be allocated to persons who have been paying for their servicing under the housing cooperative schemes.
Lastly they should seek a cease and desist order against any parties that have been harassing them such as Mr Chiyangwa.
Wednesday 1 July 2015
The MDC election boycott in a nutshell
The MDC is primarily an opportunistic party. Several disparate and ideologically opposed groups thought they had seen an easy stroll into power.
In the MDC you had avowed socialists like Munyaradzi Gwisai getting into bed with avowed capitalists like Eddie Cross. You had trade unionists dancing with industrialists. There was no core ideology or motivation. There was no fundamental collective set of principles.
After the victory of trade unionist Chiluba in Zambia everyone thought if they threw a trade union sheepskin over whatever contraption they had, they could saunter into power. There was no deep personal conviction by most members. All of the groups concerned got together merely because they thought getting rid of Mugabe was a shortcut to achieving their individual aims.
I am convinced that a large number of people in these groups also privately saw the opportunity to control, and hence dip their hands into, lots of cash. That is why anyone who gets close to the top, is not prepared to back down.
Excuse the pun but no pig at the trough steps away to let others eat. If it is forced away it tries to drag a portion of the trough with it. That explains the numerous splits in the MDC.
When there was lots of cash circulating in the opposition, there was a lot to spare for things like elections. Now that most of the financial backers have pulled away and there is little cash, why waste some of it on elections instead of just pocketing it. As far as I am concerned that is the fundamental motive behind the election boycott. The rest of what is being said is just suitable justifications.
Besides that fact that you do not need an electronic voters roll to hold a reasonably credible election, election time is also a good opportunity to market yourself. In simple marketing terms it is called keeping the customers mindshare by maintaining brand presence. It allso helps to keep your supporters motivated.
Any other route is nothing but a gamble that Zanu-PF will make more blunders and drive support away from itself. Zanu-PF blunders, especially with the economy, is what has kept the MDC alive. Otherwise they would have collapsed a long time ago.
The MDC and other opposition groups are boycotting elections simply because they do not want to spend money on them. It also shows that most opposition leaders do not have sufficient personal conviction and motivation to soldier on despite difficulties.
In the MDC you had avowed socialists like Munyaradzi Gwisai getting into bed with avowed capitalists like Eddie Cross. You had trade unionists dancing with industrialists. There was no core ideology or motivation. There was no fundamental collective set of principles.
After the victory of trade unionist Chiluba in Zambia everyone thought if they threw a trade union sheepskin over whatever contraption they had, they could saunter into power. There was no deep personal conviction by most members. All of the groups concerned got together merely because they thought getting rid of Mugabe was a shortcut to achieving their individual aims.
I am convinced that a large number of people in these groups also privately saw the opportunity to control, and hence dip their hands into, lots of cash. That is why anyone who gets close to the top, is not prepared to back down.
Excuse the pun but no pig at the trough steps away to let others eat. If it is forced away it tries to drag a portion of the trough with it. That explains the numerous splits in the MDC.
When there was lots of cash circulating in the opposition, there was a lot to spare for things like elections. Now that most of the financial backers have pulled away and there is little cash, why waste some of it on elections instead of just pocketing it. As far as I am concerned that is the fundamental motive behind the election boycott. The rest of what is being said is just suitable justifications.
Besides that fact that you do not need an electronic voters roll to hold a reasonably credible election, election time is also a good opportunity to market yourself. In simple marketing terms it is called keeping the customers mindshare by maintaining brand presence. It allso helps to keep your supporters motivated.
Any other route is nothing but a gamble that Zanu-PF will make more blunders and drive support away from itself. Zanu-PF blunders, especially with the economy, is what has kept the MDC alive. Otherwise they would have collapsed a long time ago.
The MDC and other opposition groups are boycotting elections simply because they do not want to spend money on them. It also shows that most opposition leaders do not have sufficient personal conviction and motivation to soldier on despite difficulties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)